Welcome to Texas justice: You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Odds and Ends

Here are a handful of odds and ends that merit Grits readers attention:

Third Court of Appeals reducing backlogAfter lagging behind other courts in case backlogs for years, under its new chief justice Austin's 3rd Court of Appeals is making a dent in its older cases. The 8th Court of Appeals out of El Paso now has the longest delays.

Batson not just an issue in old casesRacial discrimination in jury selection by Dallas prosecutors continued at least until 2002, according to a ruling by a federal appeals court. Judge Catarina Haynes ruled in a so-called Batson challenge that "the state's reasons for striking [black jurors] ... were implausible or invalid, and therefore were pretexts for discrimination." What's more, the story mentions "a 2005 investigation by The Dallas Morning News that found prosecutors excluded blacks from juries at twice the rate they excluded whites.

Jailed in Wichita CountyThe Wichita Falls Times Record News published a detailed story walking through the intake process at the Wichita County Jail.

Dallas prosecutor allegedly coached witness, concealed other suspectThe sole witness in a 1995 murder case now says he didn't see the defendant and picked him out "because that was what I was instructed to do by the prosecutor and not because I recognized him as being the shooter." The defendant "was freed after Dallas County prosecutors began to re-examine his case when a memo was found in a police file identifying someone else as a suspect. That memo was never turned over to his defense team as required by law."

11 comments:

doran
said...

In re: death penalty for corporations? Sure, why not? The penalty would be executed by placing the corp in receivership, liquidating all of the corporate assets, forfeiting share-holders' interests, paying off all [non-political] debts, and revoking the corporation's charter.

The satirist in question suggested that "At its trial in Houston, the entire company, from CEO to janitorial staff, was sentenced to die by lethal injection after its insanity plea was snickered at by a jury. It is now filing appeals and praying a lot while incarcerated in expanded death rows at two suddenly overcrowded Texas prisons."

btw. Corporations have enjoyed "personhood" for a long time. The most recent and stupid decision of SCOTUS about this subject went to the logical conclusion that if corporations are persons, they cannot be deprived of freedom of speech. And SCOTUS has previously held that spending money on political campaigns is a form of speech.

Doran, Corporations are "associations" of people,SCOTUS made the correct decision in that a group of people can colloborate to produce political ads whether they are collectively referred to as a corporation or not.As far as I know, the cameramen, scriptwriters, and actors in the Movie "Hillary" were people not "corporations", what does a "corporation" look like in the flesh anyway.

The argument that "corporations" will "unduly" influence elections is bogus as ultimatly, it is the individual voter who makes the final decision. This position smacks of paternalism as it implies voters can be forced to vote the "wrong" way as determined by ??. I also doubt corporations will rush out to spend big bucks on political campaigns as they have worry about PR. Disclosure requirements still apply so an attack ad with the disclaimer "paid for by Dr. Evil Industries" will still be required.

Doran, PEOPLE can now corroborate or "conspire" to make political "speech" whether they are organized as a corporation or not.The Constitution does not exclude "corporations". I suppose a talking horse would also have freedom of speech.Even illegal aliens can speak freely in this country. SCOTUS got it right. If you don't like want "corporations" have to say then don't listen to them. Jeez, I can't believe how controversal this decision was. duane

Duane, I just looked through the copy of the US Constitution that I keep close at hand. There is nothing in there as far as I could find, about corporations having freedom of speech. Or about horses, or jackasses, having freedom of speech. There is a lot of language about people and persons, some of whom are unfortunately jackasses, having freedom of speech. If you think that the Founding Brothers were concerned about the freedoms and liberties of corporations, or horses, rather than of people, then explain to us why there are no references to such. And also give us a clue as to where you studied American Constitutional History.

The US Supreme Court, years and years ago, in a fit of judicial activism, held that corporations are "persons" protected by the US Constitution from governmental interference with those rights guaranteed to persons by the Constitution. Later, SCOTUS determined that spending money to support a candidate or a proposition is a form of speech. These decision pre-saged the most recent SCOTUS decisions about campaign expenditures by corporations and make that opinion perfectly consistent with the prior opinions.

I hope you can appreciate the sophomoric linguistic contortions which this Nation's highest Court went through: A legal entity with no brain, no blood coursing through veins which don't exist, no skin and no digestive system is nontheless a "person." This line of reasoning makes your suggestion, that horses are also persons under the protection of the Constitution, more likely to come to fruition. PETA must be in ecstasy by now.

I look forward to the day when someone will get a court to agree, based upon these SCOTUS opinions, that trees are persons and that trees indeed do have standing to sue the corporate persons who prey upon them.

The decision by SCOTUS that spending money on elections is a form of Constitutionally protected speech, makes a lot of sense when applied to real people. It allows us a concrete way to express our support for candidates and propositions. The application of this decision to corporate entities which [or would it be 'who'] spend money on elections was a perfectly logical - even if sophistic - extension of the theory that corporations are persons.

What I find curious is the surprise on the part of a lot of people about the recent decision. Some of us saw it coming years ago; we all should have expected it.

What I find even more surprising is the opinion, such as yours, that the concern that ' "corporations" will "unduly" influence elections is bogus.' Your opinion suggests a great big blind spot in your understanding of the role money plays in elections. Why do you think politicians raise and spend millions of dollars to get elected? If money did not play such a huge role, we would not even be having this conversation because no one, including corporations, would ever have litigated the matter.

Of course unlimited corporate donations will affect elections. That is what political propaganda is all about, and the more propaganda a candidate or a candidate's supporters can buy, the more likely they are to win.

And how can you possibly deny the possibility of seriously perverse influence on American elections of money in vast amounts from corporations which may not be owned AT ALL by Americans? Under the SCOTUS ruling, corporations under the control of foreign governments, foreign persons, foreign corporations, and foreign enemies, will have a grand opportunity to elect the people to Congress whom they want in Congress. Al Queda, for instance, could form a corporation in Somalia, and fund the elections to Congress of enough dumb-asses to cripple this Nation's military security. Does this give you a good feeling, Duane?

8:26 I believe the corps. have to be incorporated in the U.S., for what ever restriction that imposes. As far as opposing corporate influence;Time-Warner is a corporation as is Fox and NBC. Maybe this just balances out the influence of elitist journalists who are more propagandists than fact reporters.

During the World War II, Art Deco jewellery was ugg sale a very popular style among women. The females started ugg boots wearing short dresses and cut their hair short. And uggs such boyish style was accessorized with Art Deco jewellery. They used cheap ugg boots long dangling earrings and necklaces, multiple bracelets and bold ugg boots uk rings.Art Deco jewellery has harshly geometric and symmetrical theme instead disocunt ugg boots of free flowing curves and naturalistic motifs. Art Deco Jewelry buy ugg boots today displays designs that consist of arcs, circles, rectangles, squares, and ugg outlet triangles. Bracelets, earrings, necklaces and rings are added with long ugg boots outlet lines and curves.One example of Art Deco jewelry is the Art Deco ring. Art Deco rings have ugg mall sophisticated sparkle and bold styles. These rings are not intended for a subtle look, they are meant to be noticed. Hence, these are perfect for people with bold styles.

GfB Writer Bios

Subscribe by email

Support Grits via Donation

Donate to Grits via PayPal. Grits is a hobby, but donations help cover newspaper subscriptions, periodic travel, open records fees, etc.. Donate if you can! When I have resources, the blog can do more stuff!

"the indispensable blog on criminal justice and law enforcement in Texas"

- Marie Gottschalk, author of 'Caught'

"plugged in and well written"

- DallasBlog

"I always tell people interested in these issues that your blog is the most important news source, and have had high-ranking corrections officials tell me they read it regularly."

- Scott Medlock, Texas Civil Rights Project

"a helluva blog"

- Solomon Moore, NY Times criminal justice correspondent

"Congrats on building one of the most read and important blogs on a specific policy area that I've ever seen"

- Donald Lee, Texas Conference of Urban Counties

GFB "is a fact-packed, trustworthy reporter of the weirdness that makes up corrections and criminal law in the Lone Star State" and has "shown more naked emperors than Hans Christian Andersen ever did."

-Attorney Bob Mabry, Conroe

"Grits really shows the potential of a single-state focused criminal law blog"

- Corey Yung, Sex Crimes Blog

"I regard Grits for Breakfast as one of the most welcome and helpful vehicles we elected officials have for understanding the problems and their solutions."

Tommy Adkisson,Bexar County Commissioner

"dude really has a pragmatic approach to crime fighting, almost like he’s some kind of statistics superhero"

- Rob Patterson, The Austin Post"Scott Henson's 'Grits for Breakfast' is one of the most insightful blogs on criminal justice issues in Texas."

- Texas Public Policy Foundation

"Nobody does it better or works harder getting it right"

David Jennings, aka "Big Jolly"

"I appreciate the fact that you obviously try to see both sides of an issue, regardless of which side you end up supporting."

Kim Vickers,Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and EducationGrits for Breakfast "has probably broken more criminal justice stories than any TX reporter, but stays under the radar. Fascinating guy."

Maurice Chammah,The Marshall Project"unrestrained and uneducated"

John Bradley,Former Williamson County District Attorney, now former Attorney General of Palau

"our favorite blog"

- Texas District and County Attorneys Association Twitter feed"Scott Henson ... writes his terrific blog Grits for Breakfast from an outhouse in Texas."